Pages

Saturday, 8 October 2016

Raheja’s plea to contest brother’s Will dismissed

A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Amjad Sayed dismissed an
appeal filed by Purshottam Raheja and upheld a ruling of Justice Roshan Dalvi
passed in 2011.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court
appeal bench on Tuesday confirmed that a person who claims to have an interest
in the title of a bequeathed property need not be heard by court when it is
certifying the genuineness of the will.

A bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Amjad Sayed
dismissed an appeal filed by Purshottam Raheja and upheld a ruling of Justice
Roshan Dalvi passed in 2011, which had barred his plea to be a caveator and
challenge a will left by his brother.

The HC said a claim based on title interest in the
property cannot be tested in a probate petition—a petition filed in court to
have a will certified as valid and genuine. Purshottam's brother Shrichand
Raheja, who was in real estate and other businesses, had died in 2010 and left
a will. Purshottam moved the HC with a caveat that he must be heard as a family
arrangement had left him a share in the property. The land in Byculla is worth
a long legal fight that the brother launched against his sister-in-law Asha
Raheja and her children. He also claimed an interest, as a creditor.

Ravi Kadam, counsel for Purshottam, had argued that
any slight interest gives rise to a caveatble interest, and to challenge the
execution of a Will.

Counsel Pravin Samdani and Sharan Jagtiani, who
appeared for the widow and her children, argued that a title claim doesn't give
him caveatable interest, besides he was not even a class I heir and other heirs
did not object to the Will. "If his claim is accepted, every probate plea
will be converted to a suit by a creditor." A suit necessitates a trial,
which means further delay in will being declared valid or invalid. Besides,
Jagtiani argued that on facts, there was no evidence to back his claim of being
a creditor.

The HC said he cannot file a Caveat but must
proceed in a separate civil suit.

The HC however, stayed its order for 12 weeks, to
enable Purshottam to go in appeal, further to the apex court.